logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2015.07.30 2014가단33897
대여금
Text

1. The plaintiff (the captain)'s claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

Reasons

1. The assertion;

A. The Plaintiff (Appointed Party)’s assertion 1) The Network E extended KRW 84,00,000,000 to the Defendant on November 16, 2004, and KRW 50,000,000 on September 20, 2007, and KRW 84,000,000 on April 5, 2012 (hereinafter “instant loan”).

(2) On April 15, 2014, KRW 10,00,000, and KRW 8,000,000 on May 30, 2014, and KRW 18,857,000 on May 30, 2014, the Defendant shall pay KRW 28,285,00, KRW 1857,00 to the appointed party D and the appointed party (appointed party) in accordance with the inheritance shares, as the Plaintiff (appointed party) and the appointed party inherited the foregoing loan claims.

B. As to the defendant's assertion, the defendant asserts that F, the defendant's wife, misrepresenting the defendant's name, borrowed the loan of this case from the plaintiff.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the following facts are acknowledged: (a) the Defendant’s name, resident registration number, address, etc. of the loan certificate of this case is not the Defendant’s penology, but the F’s penology is recognized: (b) the Defendant’s name, resident registration number, address, etc. of the loan certificate of this case is written.

Therefore, the evidence Nos. 3 and 4 cannot be used as evidence that the Defendant borrowed money from the network E, since the authenticity of the evidence is not recognized.

According to Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 8, although the fact that the deceased E transferred or received money through the account under the name of the defendant is recognized, it is not sufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant borrowed money from the deceased E, and there is no other evidence to recognize it. Thus, the plaintiff's claim by the plaintiff (appointed party) is without merit.

3. If so, the plaintiff (appointed party)'s claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow